Latin
Mass & Catholic Tradition: Q & A (Page 4)

Important
Notice: Items herein are provided for informational purposes only
and are not comprehensive. Information herein may be partial. We do not
guarantee accuracy of any item herein. We may change wording,
punctuation, capitalization, shorten items, etc. Translation / wording
may vary. We make no guarantees regarding any item herein. We are not
liable for any occurrence which may result from using this site. All
applicable items subject to change without notice. By using this site
you indicate agreement to all terms. For more terms information, click
here.

No. It is generally thought to be unfortunate
that the traditional Mass is referred to as the 'Tridentine' Mass
since "this practice has led to the widespread impression
that it was composed following the Council of Trent." As
Davies says, "It should be made clear immediately that the
terms 'Tridentine Mass' and 'Mass of St. Pius V' are not strictly
accurate. They give the impression that the Mass promulgated by
St. Pius V was a new Mass composed on the instructions of the
Fathers of the Council of Trent. On the contrary...the Tridentine
Fathers endorsed the Missal then in use in Rome, a Missal whose
use had long transcended the boundaries of the Eternal City and
which...already formed the basis of most of the Mass rites in use
throughout Latin Christendom."

Yes. Further, it has been said that these
changes were designed to pave the way for the imposition of the Novus Ordo Mass of
the 1960's (note that "implementing changes in steps reduces
dissent and prepares people to accept change"). Regarding the
changes, Davies states, "No layman could help noticing the changes
made to the Ordinary of the Mass in the 1965 Missal, and there can
be little doubt that its purpose was to prepare the faithful for
the revolutionary changes that were to be introduced in 1969. By
design or by coincidence the preparation for this revolution
followed precisely the strategy of Thomas Cranmer, the apostate
Archbishop of Canterbury, prior to the imposition of his English
Communion Service of 1549. One of the principal features of the
Catholic liturgy had been stability. Developments in the manner in
which Mass was celebrated did occur, but they crept in almost
imperceptibly over the centuries, and the Missals in use in
England and throughout Europe in the sixteenth century had
remained unchanged for at least several hundred years. The
faithful took it for granted that whatever else might change, the
Mass could not. In order to avoid provoking resistance among the
Catholic faithful Cranmer deemed it prudent not to do too much too
soon. Parts of the Mass were celebrated in the vernacular - but,
many insisted, it was still the same Mass, so why risk persecution
by protesting? New material was introduced into the unchanged
Mass, which while open to a Protestant interpretation was in no
way specifically heretical; once again, why protest?"

Also,
Davies states: "Every such break with tradition lessened the impact of those to
follow, so that when changes that were not simply matters of discipline
were introduced the possibility of effective resistance was considerably
lessened. The introduction of the vernacular was the most significant
innovation. Where the ordinary Catholic was concerned the celebration of
parts or all of the traditional Mass in English was far more startling
than the imposition of the newly composed vernacular Communion service
in 1549. Douglas Harrison, the Anglican Dean of Bristol, accepts that by
introducing English into the liturgy, 'Cranmer clearly was preparing for
the day when liturgical revision would become possible.' In his
Liturgical Institutions, Dom Prosper Guéranger writes: 'We must admit
that it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the
sacred language. If it should ever prevail, it would be well on its way
to victory.' Exactly the same process was initiated following the Second
Vatican Council. There is not the least doubt that the changes imposed
upon the traditional Mass before 1969 were far more startling than the
introduction of the Novus Ordo in 1969. By the time it came into use the
faithful had already reached the stage of either accepting any
innovation without question or joining the mass exodus from our churches
that has continued to this day and shows no sign of abating. The 1965
Missal can be compared to Cranmer's 1549 Communion Service or Mass,
which was only an interim measure, intended to condition the faithful
into accepting its 1552 replacement which could be interpreted only as a
Protestant Communion service. Likewise, the 1965 Missal was intended to
condition the faithful into accepting without protest the radically
reformed Missal of 1969."

As
Dom Gueranger said, many years before the Second Vatican Council:
"There has been such a systematic effort made
to destroy, or at last to impoverish, the exterior rites and
practices of religion, that we find, throughout the world,
thousands of Christians who have been insensibly made strangers to
those admirable sentiments of faith, which the Church alone, in
her Liturgy, can give to the body of the faithful."

Some persons used to the
Novus Ordo (New Order) Mass of the 1960's sometimes complain that
the priest "has his back to the people" in the
'Tridentine' Mass. This outlook may arise because such persons
have no background in liturgical history, because they don't
understand the reasoning for this orientation, or possibly because
they are used to being "the center of attention" in the Novus Ordo
Mass. In the 'Tridentine' Mass, however, the focus is not on the
people, but on Almighty God, who from the earliest days of the
Church has been represented as coming from the East. As Cardinal
Ratzinger has stated,

"...a
common turning to the east [the traditional position, wherein the
priest and the people face eastward, and not each other]...remains
essential. This is not a case of something accidental, but of
what is essential. Looking at the priest has no
importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord." (Cardinal
Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, emphasis added)

Such persons may mistakenly believe
the Second Vatican Council called for a change in
orientation, but this is not true.

"Mass facing the people is not once mentioned in any
conciliar document. It has never been the general practice in any
Apostolic Church, Catholic or [the schismatic] Orthodox. The invariable tradition
has been to celebrate Mass facing the East, a symbol both of the
Resurrection and the Second Coming." (Davies)

"[N]o law mandating a celebration facing the people has
ever been promulgated since the [Second Vatican] Council."
(Davies)

Note that the facing of a
particular direction for worship may be traced back even to the
Jews:

"Orientation, in its present sense of facing a
particular direction, is a religious custom which long pre-dated
Christianity. The Jews, wherever they lived in the world, turned
to face the temple in Jerusalem when they prayed. So-called
liturgical 'experts' today often attempt to justify Mass facing
the people by stating Our Lord did not turn His back upon His
Apostles at the Last Supper. Of course He didn't, but neither did
He face them across a table. They were all on the same side,
facing the temple! It is thus nonsensical to claim that we are
returning to a practice of the Last Supper by adopting the
practice of a celebration facing the people. Similarly, it is
equally nonsensical to claim that having Mass in the vernacular is
a return to what took place at the Last Supper. A major part of the
Jewish paschal liturgy was conducted in Hebrew, as it is today.
Hebrew was no more comprehensible to an ordinary Jew at the time
of Our Lord than Latin is to an ordinary Mexican today, even
though Aramaic (the language then used in Palestine), was derived
from Hebrew, just as Spanish is derived from Latin." (Davies)

Further, it should be noted that
Mass facing the people is not historical -
contrary to the
claims of some. Archeological evidence shows that the altars did
not face the people - but faced eastward. The few notable architectural
aberrations in no way support claims of Masses facing the people - rather the people and priest still faced
eastward and did not turn in towards each other (e.g. the
lay persons had their backs to the altar). In any event, such
cases were not the general practice. As Davies
points out:

"[At] no time in the history of the Church have altars
ever been
constructed specifically to facilitate a celebration facing the
people. As I have already shown, there is no precedent in the
entire history of the Church for celebrating Mass facing the
people as an act of conscious pastoral policy. The practice
constitutes a radical break with Tradition, and has been invested
with an anti-sacrificial signification since its adoption by
Protestants as a sign that they believe their Lord's Supper to be
no more than a commemorative meal."

Those who point to examples
such as St. Peter's as "proof" of the practice of Mass
facing the people should take note of the following:

"It
has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt that from the time the
Christians were first allowed to build churches, they constructed
them along an east-west axis. Some had the apse containing the
altar at the east end, and the entrance the west; in others this
procedure was reversed. By the end of the fourth century almost every
church building in the East had the apse at the east end, and by
the second half of the fifth century, this was also the case in
the West. But, even where the altar was situated at the west end
of the church, Mass was still celebrated facing the East, and so
the altars of these churches were constructed in such a manner
that the priest could stand on the west side in order to celebrate
Mass facing the East. This arrangement can still be seen in such
basilicas as St. Peter's in Rome, and it is precisely this
arrangement that has given rise to the myth of Mass facing the
people as a practice of the early Church. But surely, it might be
argued, if the celebrant stood on the west side of the altar, as
he would have done in St. Peter's Basilica, then Mass must have
been celebrated facing the people. Not at all. The ancient
practice in churches where the apse was at the west end was as
follows: the congregation did not stand directly in front of the
altar but on either side of the nave, the men on one side and the
women on the other. During the first part of the Mass, the Mass of
the Catechumens, the congregation would face the celebrant in
order to hear the readings and the homily. But for the Mass of the
Faithful...they would all turn to face the East. Ancient liturgies
contain directions for the congregation to face the East, or, as
the instruction was usually expressed, to turn toward the Lord
(conversi ad Dominum). Turning toward the Lord, symbolized by the
rising sun, and turning toward the East, were synonymous... The
construction of the altar in such basilicas as St. Peter's was,
then to make possible a Mass facing the East and not a Mass
facing the people." (Davies)

By facing the east, the
direction of the rising sun, we are facing the direction which
symbolizes the heavenly Jerusalem and in the direction in which
Christ is expected to return. Furthermore, it should also be noted
that "Our
Lord had faced the west while redeeming mankind upon the cross and
by looking towards the east we are actually facing Him because the
Sacrifice of the Cross is made present during the Mass."
(Davies)

As Davies states:

"The
adoption of the eastward direction for worship by Christians also
represented a reaction against the Jewish practice of turning
towards Jerusalem to pray. The East symbolized the heavenly
Jerusalem in contrast with the earthly Jerusalem of the Jews. The
Christians of antiquity found a rich and seemingly inexhaustible
symbolism in the eastward direction. Christians worshipped not the
sun king but the King of the sun, because the sun itself was
created by Christ... Our Lord had faced the West while offering
the Sacrifice of His Life upon the Cross, and so by facing
eastwards during the Mass we are actually facing Him, because the
Sacrifice of the Cross is made present during the Mass... St.
Thomas Aquinas taught that the eastward direction symbolized both
Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained. Paradise had been situated in
the East, and so by worshipping in this direction we symbolize our
desire to regain Paradise, the heavenly Paradise represented by
the East. There are also traditions that just as the birth of the
Messiah was heralded by a star in the East...His Second Coming
will be like lighting coming from the same direction (Mt.
24:27)... There is also a tradition that the Second Coming will
take place during the celebration of Mass. With their eyes fixed
on the East, priest and people will be prepared to receive Our
Lord in an attitude of adoration."

Furthermore, when the priest
faces eastward, he also faces the Lord directly and really - in
the tabernacle. In fact, turning the priest around to face the
people in the Novus Ordo Mass necessitated removing the tabernacle - containing Our Lord
- from the altar. As Pope Pius XII has said, "To separate the
Tabernacle from the Altar is tantamount to separating two things
which, of their very nature, must remain together."

Those who criticize the traditional
orientation of the priest are criticizing nearly the entire history of the Church
and are criticizing the Eastern rites. They may fail to realize
that what occurs at the altar is mysterious and does not need to
be seen by the people (note that "the solemn moments of the
Eastern liturgy are conducted behind
the iconostasis and not seen by the people at all"). They may
fail to realize that "clearly seeing what occurs at the altar does not increase our
attention - but over time, attention from it may be reduced."
They should also reflect on the fact that one cannot actually see
the Transubstantiation occurring. They may have never reflected on
the fact that the priest may be distracted by the actions of the
people and the people may be distracted by the expressions and mannerisms
of the priest. Also, it is fitting that we should not
see the face of the priest, since the priest acts in the place of
Christ.

Finally, it should be noted
that it is fitting that the priest, who reconciles sinful man with
his offended God (cf. Mt. 16:19, Mt. 18:18) be focused on God, rather than on
man:

"It should now be apparent how fatuous it is to speak of the
priest celebrating Mass with 'his back to the people'. During Mass
the priest stands between people and altar, a mediator between God
and man, the outermost representative of humanity, standing at the
very point where heaven and earth come together when God the Son
is brought down upon the altar as our Sacrificial Victim (hostia).
The priest is also like a shepherd in eastern countries. He does
not need to drive his flock from behind, to watch them lest they
stray. [He] walks before them, leading them to green pastures [for]
the safety of their fold. They know him and he knows them. But
Catholics at worship today no longer look outwards and upwards to
heaven, no longer fix their hearts and minds upon Our Lord.
Contemporary Catholicism is an introspective religion, symbolized
aptly by the turning round of the altar so that, turned in upon
themselves, priest and people can fix their minds upon each other."
(Davies)

Note: For more information
regarding the differences between the Traditional Latin
('Tridentine') Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass, click
here.

No, the 'Tridentine' Mass is neither complicated
nor hard to understand. In fact, this Mass was clearly understood
by persons of all ages for many years. The fact that the Mass is
said in the Latin language may give some people who are used to
Mass in the vernacular the impression that it is difficult to
understand, but they probably have either (1) not attended very
many 'Tridentine' Masses, or (2) have put little to no effort into
understanding the 'Tridentine' Mass. Note that it is not at all
necessary to understand Latin to understand the 'Tridentine' Mass,
even though it is said in Latin. Not only can one follow along in
a Missal (which contains English), but one can simply observe what
is going on. Note also that the Epistle and Gospel are commonly
re-read in the vernacular language just before the sermon. And,
after attending a few times, it becomes even more familiar. After
a while, persons often come to appreciate the use of the Latin
language during Mass, which offers many benefits (click
here). It is also helpful to appreciate the many benefits
of the 'Tridentine' Mass as a whole (click
here for a comparison between the 'Tridentine' Mass and
the Novus Ordo Mass). Finally, if more explanation is desired, one
may obtain good reading materials concerning the Mass or simply ask
a knowledgeable parishioner or the priest. Clearly, "the way to make people understand better is not to change what
is, but to better explain it to them." Remember that tying
one's shoes probably seemed complicated in the beginning!

As the supreme head of the Catholic Church,
it is clear that the pope has absolute authority and jurisdiction in the Church. However, even his
authority necessarily has limits
(e.g. he cannot add or delete sacraments, discard infallible
teachings, order people to sin, etc.). With regard to the
creation and imposition of the new Mass, some have considered
whether the pope really had the authority to do so. Considering
that the Pope has the solemn duty to pass on that which he has
received, and that the traditional Mass was previously developed
under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit, and that the New Mass - which was created by men -
contains radical and unprecedented reforms (even novelties that
parallel the Protestant 'reforms' of the 16th century), debate has
ensued over the pope's (moral) right to make such changes.

Drawing a distinction between legal authority
and moral authority, Davies states: "Fr. Dulac also shows
that whatever legal powers he may possess, the Pope
certainly does not have the moral right to overthrow the established
liturgy in so drastic and unprecedented a manner." He also
explains: "When this pamphlet was first published, several
letters were received from readers stating that they did not agree
that a valid distinction could be made between what is legally and
morally right. Two simple examples should suffice to make the
validity of the distinction clear. In many countries there are
laws permitting abortion, but the fact that abortion is legal does
not mean that it ceases to be immoral. The father of a family who
had inherited a large fortune might decide to increase it
considerably by involving himself in speculative ventures which
offered a very high rate of return, but involved a high degree of
risk. If he lost the entire fortune he would have broken no law,
but he would have behaved immorally in squandering money which he
should have considered as being held in trust for his children,
and which should have been invested prudently... The Pope is
absolute ruler of the Vatican State. He would have the legal
authority to order the demolition of St. Peter's Basilica to be
replaced by a contemporary concrete monstrosity which reflected
the spirit of twentieth-century man. Such an act would be a moral
outrage, and any pope rash enough to undertake it would no doubt
be prevented from doing so by physical resistance on the part of
the outraged
faithful. But what of the liturgy? Surely the argument cannot be
applied here. It most certainly can! The Pope is the custodian of
the Church's liturgy. It is not his to dispose of at his whim. The
Roman Liturgy is a far greater cultural and spiritual treasure
than St. Peter's Basilica or any other church or cathedral built
to enshrine it." Or, simply put, "If the building is
sacred, how much more so the Mass!"

We can see in history that Popes who were
thought to have abused their power met up against the resistance of
persons who in no way denied papal supremacy. For example,
consider the case of the people of Milan who successfully took up
arms in defense of their liturgy.

Further,
consider the following argument: "Imagine that the Pope, as
supreme pastor of the Church, issued a decree today requiring all
the uniate churches of the Near East to give up their Oriental
liturgy and adopt the Latin Rite... The Pope would not exceed the
competence of his jurisdictional primacy by such a decree, and the
decree would be legally valid. But we can also pose an entirely
different question. Would it be morally licit for the Pope to issue
such a decree? Any reasonable man and any true Christian would have
to answer 'no'. Any confessor of the Pope would have to tell him
that in the concrete situation of the Church today such a decree,
despite its legal validity, would be subjectively and objectively an extremely grave moral offense against charity, against the unity
of the Church rightly understood (which does not demand uniformity),
against possible reunion of the [schismatic] Orthodox with the Roman Catholic
Church, etc., a moral sin from which the Pope could be absolved only
if he revoked the decree... The exercise of papal jurisdictional
primacy remains even when it is legal, subject to moral norms, which
are not necessarily satisfied merely because a given act of
jurisdiction is legal. Even an act of jurisdiction which legally
binds its subjects can offend against moral principles... To point
out and protest against the possible infringement against moral
norms of an act which must respect these norms is not to deny or
question the legal competence of the man possessing the
jurisdiction." (Davies, quoting a theology book)

Yes. As Pope Pius XII has said, "So varied and diverse are men's
talents and characters that it is impossible for all to be moved and
attracted to the same extent by community prayers, hymns and
liturgical services. Moreover, the needs and inclinations of all are
not the same, nor are they always constant in the same individual.
Who, then, would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all these
Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits? On
the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier
for certain people; for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the
mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or
recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are
still essentially in harmony with them." (Pope Pius XII,
"Mediator Dei", 1947 A.D.)

The use of 'Extraordinary Ministers of the
Eucharist'+ (also wrongly, but popularly called "Eucharistic
Ministers") - lay persons (including women) distributing Holy
Communion - began in the 20th century as a result of disobedience
to the Pope. Their use, in the wake of the Second Vatican Council,
has contributed to irreverence, loss of faith, confusion of the
priestly role, desecration, and sacrilege. Their use is an entire
break with Catholic tradition, and it coincides with Protestant
sensibilities. It should be noted that the Second Vatican Council
never called for their use. As the Council of Trent states: "In the sacramental reception
it has always been the custom in the Church of God that the laity
receive Communion from the priests and that priests who are
celebrating Mass give Communion to themselves. This custom should
rightly and deservedly be kept as coming down from apostolic
tradition." Thankfully, therefore, the use of 'Lay Ministers'
is prohibited in the 'Tridentine' Mass. Note: For more information
on this topic, click
here.

+ Reminder: The correct term
is "Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion"

Introduction of Communion under both species
for lay persons in the 20th century began as a result of
disobedience to the Pope. It has contributed to irreverence,
desecration, and sacrilege. It has caused some Catholics to
erroneously (and heretically) believe that it is necessary to
Communicate under both species or that they receive Christ
"more fully" if they receive Holy Communion under both
species. It has also led to the widespread proliferation of
'Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion' (lay persons dispensing
Holy Communion), a practice always condemned by the Church. [Note:
Click
here for more information on this topic.] This practice
has been especially pushed on the faithful by certain groups (e.g.
liberals/modernists, feminists). In practice, it leads various problems (e.g. spillage & profanation, confusion of teaching,
hygiene / sanitation concerns, danger of infection / spread of
disease, interference with medications, etc.). Further, the Church has ruled that it is not necessary to receive Holy Communion under
both species. Therefore, only the priest receives Holy Communion
under both species in the 'Tridentine' Mass. Note: For more information
on this topic, click
here.

Like the reception of Communion under both
species and the use of 'Lay ministers', the introduction of
Communion in the hand for lay persons in the 20th century began as
a result of disobedience to the Pope. It has contributed to
irreverence, loss of faith, desecration and sacrilege. Communion
in the hand often results in sacred particles - Christ's true
Flesh and Blood - being dropped on the floor and trampled on by
parishioners. In fact, since most people fail to examine their
hands for sacred particles after receiving Holy Communion in the
hand, there could be dozens or more sacred particles on the floor
in any parish where this practice is tolerated. This means that
many people at each parish may literally be stepping on Christ's
body - even those parishioners who don't take Communion in the
hand. Remember that: "If any one denieth that in the
venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained
under each species, and under every part of each species, when
separated; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent)
Unfortunately, many were
"influenced to adopt this practice by deceitful measures, by
'a campaign of deliberate deception and misleading
propaganda'". No known pope recommends this practice. Further, the practice of Communion in the hand lessens respect for
the Holy Eucharist, contributes to sacrilege & desecration,
leads to loss of faith in the Real Presence, detracts from
priestly dignity, and places lay persons on the same level as
priests. It has been used as a tool by liberals and feminists who
want to change the Church (they want the practice to be imposed on
everyone). Thankfully, therefore, 'Communion in the hand' for the
laity is
prohibited in the 'Tridentine' Mass, where handling the Holy
Eucharist is reserved to the consecrated hands of the priest. Note: For more information
on this topic, click
here.

There are numerous reasons why faithful
Catholics object to a 'sign of peace' among the laity during Mass.
For example:

It
turns one's attention away from Christ, who is truly present
on the altar.

It
is NOT appropriate to socialize during a solemn sacrifice
- the very re-presentation of Calvary.

It
forces people to turn their back on Christ in the Holy
Eucharist in favor of their neighbor.

It
tends to harm belief in the Real Presence. Note that when
'the sign of peace' occurs, the Eucharist is ignored - it is
left alone on the altar with no one adoring It...
people are instead exchanging handshakes or ? with their
neighbor...even the priest may leave the Holy Eucharist alone
on the altar to shake hands with others.

It
does not honor God to turn our back on Christ and
toward our neighbor.

Socializing
with our neighbor is inappropriate in a place of
worship.

It
turns our thoughts away from God and onto ourselves and our
neighbor. This action occurs at the very moment when Christ is
present at the altar - our attention is drawn away from Him
and on to our neighbors during one of the most solemn and
sacred parts of the Mass.

It
gives a false sense of peace. "True peace isn't a worldly
peace, a superficial peace, or a mere act of politeness. True
peace comes from Christ and is wholly incompatible with sin.
In fact, true peace is lost upon committing a single mortal
sin." In fact, one may offer "peace" during the
Mass to strangers - strangers who may have had an abortion, be
abortionists, have recently committed adultery, be living in
sin, be using contraception, be dressed scandalously (e.g.
tight or revealing clothes, showing cleavage, bare stomachs or
shoulders, etc.). It is wrong to offer such persons
"peace" - it gives them the impression that they
already have Christ's peace and leaves them uncorrected.
"'Peace, peace!' they say, though there is no
peace." (Jer. 8:11) Scripture commands us to love one
another, but never commands us to offer one another a
"phony peace". Rather, consider St. Paul's
instruction to "Reprimand publicly those who do sin, so
that the rest also will be afraid." (1 Tm. 5:20)

Instead
of preparing quietly and internally for the worthy reception
of Holy Communion, our attention is directed to superficial
gestures to our neighbors.

It
does not help our neighbor, but rather distracts him from
Christ, present on the altar.

It
brings a profane spirit into the church: "They shall also
banish from churches all those kinds of music, in which,
whether by the organ, or in the singing, there is mixed up anything lascivious or impure; as also all secular actions; vain
and therefore profane conversations, all walking about, noise,
and clamour, that so the house of God may be seen to be, and
may be called, truly a house of prayer." (Council of
Trent, Twenty-second Session)

"This
single action has done much to turn the Mass from a sacrifice
to a fraternal banquet".

It
can become an occasion of sin (flirting and romantic kisses
are not uncommon).

It
creates much noise, contrary to biblical (and other important)
admonitions:

"But the LORD is in his holy temple;
silence before him, all the earth!" (Hab. 2:20)

"Silence in the presence of the Lord
GOD!" (Zeph. 1:7)

"Silence, all mankind, in the presence
of the LORD! for he stirs forth from his holy dwelling."
(Zech. 2:17)

"As in all the churches of the holy
ones, women should keep silent in the churches,
for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as
even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they
should ask their husbands at home. Forit is improper for
a woman to speak in the church." (St. Paul under
the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor. 14:33-35) (emphasis
added)

"Let all mortal flesh be silent,
standing there...in fear and trembling; for the King of kings,
the Lord of lords, Christ our God is about to be sacrificed and
to be given as food to the faithful." (St. James)

"Nothing so becomes a
church as
silence and good order. Noise belongs to theatres, and baths,
and public processions, and market-places: but where doctrines,
and such doctrines, are the subject of teaching, there should be
stillness, and quiet, and calm reflection, and a haven of much
repose." (St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church)

"When you are before the altar where
Christ reposes, you ought no longer to think that you are
amongst men; but believe that there are troops of angels and
archangels standing by you, and trembling with respect before
the sovereign Master of Heaven and earth. Therefore, when you
are in church, be there in silence, fear, and veneration."
(St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church)

"Holiness befits the house of the
Lord; it is fitting that he whose abode has been established in
peace should be worshipped in peace and with due reverence.
Churches, then, should be entered humbly and devoutly; behavior
inside should be calm, pleasing to God, bringing peace to the
beholders, a source not only of instruction but of mental
refreshment... The consultations of universities and of any
associations whatever must cease to be held in churches, so also
must public speeches and parliaments. Idle and, even more, foul
and profane talk must stop; chatter in all its forms must cease.
Everything, in short, that may disturb divine worship or offend
the eyes of the divine majesty should be absolutely foreign to
churches, lest where pardon should be asked for our sins,
occasion is given for sin, or sin is found to be
committed." (Second Council of Lyons)

Other complaints include:

It
is distracting.

It
causes commotion.

It
causes confusion.

It
is generally superficial; a trivial gesture that has no deep or
lasting significance. It is "contrived community".

It
is often hypocritical and phony (as witnessed by behavior in the
parking lot).

Many
people dislike it (especially men).

It
is often presented as 'mandatory' (even though it may have
originally been a mere option).

It
is disorderly ["...he is not the God of disorder but
of peace." (1 Cor. 14:33)]

It
does not create peace! It doesn't even represent peace! True
peace comes from Christ alone.

It
often causes hurt feelings by those "whose hand wasn't
shaked by enough persons" or were passed over by someone.

It
puts pressure on people to make physical contact with
strangers simply because they are in close proximity.

It
has left many people with the impression that it's the most
important part of Mass. In fact, many people actually
consider the 'sign of peace' to be the highlight of the
Mass!

It
is promoted by liberals and others with an agenda to change
the Church.

People
are forced to participate / unwelcome gestures are forced on
people.

It
causes strange men and women to make physical contact with one
another.

It
causes strange men and women to make physical contact with
children.

It
is an unsanitary practice and causes the spread of germs. Note
that one doesn't just shake hands with a few persons, but
essentially with all whom they've touched as well (as well as
picking up germs from the filthy, dollar bills, collection
baskets, kneelers, etc. that they have just touched). This
spread of germs is a special concern for those with sensitive
immune systems. And, further, this practice is often followed
by the handling of the Holy Eucharist with unwashedhands.

It
makes people (especially women) more concerned about their
appearance, rather than focusing on important spiritual
realities.

It
is distracting even long before it actually occurs
(e.g. when a neighboring person has a cold, sneezes into their
hands, wipes their nose, etc. and one knows the sign of peace
is coming they may become bothered).

It
has
affected where people sit - people have selected seating based
on who they want to / don't want to shake hands with.

Is
notoriously noisy and uncontrolled (e.g. people wave, hug,
kiss, pat on the back, have conversations, roam throughout the
church, "pew hop", greet as many as possible, etc.).

As
alluded to previously, this practice makes it difficult for
faithful Catholics to follow certain scriptural admonitions,
such as:

"Silence in the presence of the Lord
GOD!" (Zeph. 1:7)

"Serve the LORD with fear; with
trembling bow down in homage" (Ps. 2:11)

"...As in all the churches of
the holy ones, women should keep silent in the churches, for
they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as
even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they
should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a
woman to speak in the church... what I am writing to you is a
commandment of the Lord." (St. Paul, 1 Cor. 14:33-37)

"... we should offer worship pleasing
to God in reverence and awe." (St. Paul, Heb. 12:28)

It
can be personally offensive - sometimes strange people may
come up and grab and touch you against your will.

It
is uncomfortable for many people. It should be noted that not
all people are demonstrative.

It
may be considered pointless - an external 'sign of peace' may
have nothing whatsoever to do with how "peaceful" we
are.

True
'signs of peace' should be spontaneous and heartfelt - not
scheduled and planned.

It
is really meaningless - and potentially harmful - considering
that it is given to all people nearby - even those you don't
know. One may be offering 'peace' to those in mortal sin,
Jews, heretics/Protestants, schismatics, etc. (Note: See 2
Jn. 1:10-11 for how we are called to treat heretics who come
to us with strange doctrine.)

It
is not a spiritual activity or a liturgical action and
therefore seems inappropriate for the Holy Sacrifice of the
Mass.

"No
matter how many hands you shake, you are no better
spiritually."

Further, those who do not wish to participate
may find it difficult to refuse. This may occur even if one is
concerned over another's inappropriate dress, their coughing into
their hands, wiping their nose, etc. They may not want to appear
unfriendly or unsociable to others. Even if they have a
compromised immune system, they may find it difficult to refuse to
participate.

Those who do refuse to participate may be
judged as unfriendly, uncharitable, grumpy, weird, etc. They may
be ostracized or even harassed. They may be touched by others
without their permission. If they refuse to join in, they may
experience glaring looks, hurtful/nasty comments (by those
wishing others 'peace'!), or have to feel bad that they may
have hurt someone's feelings.If they choose to kneel
during this time and focus on the Holy Eucharist and preparation
for Communion, they may be considered rebels - whereas those who
ignore the Holy Eucharist and roam the church, pat persons on the
back, hug, shake hands, etc. are considered "friendly"
or "virtuous". It appears that the order of the
Commandments is forgotten - God is first, our neighbor is second.

And, interestingly, it often seems that some
persons who offer "peace" to unknown people inside of
Mass, are far less "peaceful" in the parking lot. Not
only might they seem reluctant to receive physical contact from a
stranger outside of Mass, but they may positively refuse such
gestures. In contrast, many who refuse to participate in a 'sign
of peace' during Mass are happy to offer appropriate peaceful
gestures to Catholics they don't know outside of Mass.

In any event, people should act neighborly
towards each other voluntarily in a genuine manner - in their own
way - outside of Mass - and not a forced way inside of Mass. Such
actions create confusion, harm faith, and do not belong inside the
Church - a "house of prayer" (Mt. 21:13). Rather, we
should be happy to appropriately greet one another outside
of the Church.

Those who point to early Church history as
the basis of this practice should consider the following:

Scripture
does not show a 'kiss of peace' as being part of a liturgical
service - and certainly it does not show such an action occurring during a solemn sacrifice.

The
'kiss of peace' of old was not for any persons - e.g.
any unknown person in close proximity - and especially not for
those in a state of mortal sin.

The
'kiss of peace' before was not an ordinary kiss, but one that
was to show "forgetfulness of every injury". The new
'sign of peace' has "taken an ancient symbol and striped
it of its symbolism."

Clearly, today's contrived 'sign of peace' at
Mass is nothing like a 'kiss of peace' from apostolic
times.

Further, it should be noted that those who
want to go back to 'earlier practices' are quite selective
about those they wish to adopt. For example, consider that men and
women were separated in the early church (and therefore could not
make physical contact), and that those who committed certain sins
were entirely excluded from the church for years and had to remain
outside the church as "weepers", begging for prayers. To
illustrate this practice, consider this early writing which
illustrates how certain sinners were treated in the early Church:

"Let him who has been defiled with his
own sister, the daughter of his father or mother, not be
permitted to be present in the house of prayer until he cease
from his iniquitous and unlawful conduct. After coming to an
awareness of that dread sin, let him be a weeper for three
years, standing at the door of the houses of prayer and begging
the people entering there for the purpose of praying to offer in
sympathy for him, each one, earnest petitions to the Lord. After
this let him be admitted for another three years among the
hearers only; and when he has heard the Scriptures and the
teachings let him be put out and not be deemed worthy of prayer.
Then, if he has sought it with tears and has cast himself down
before the Lord with a contrite heart and with great humility,
let him be given submission for another three years. And thus,
when he has exhibited worthy fruits of repentance, let him be
admitted in the tenth year to the prayer of the faithful without
Communion. And when he has assembled for two years in prayer
with the faithful, then let him finally be deemed worthy of the
Communion of the good." (St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the
Church, c. 375 A.D.)

By contrast, today, the same sinner may enter
the Church, possibly receive Holy Communion, and would be freely
wished "peace" by those around him - and this might
occur not only after he has stopped his shameful conduct, but even
before he has stopped! Further, it should be noted that
non-Catholics were previously forbidden to view certain
parts of the Mass (including the part in which the 'sign of peace'
now occurs in the Novus Ordo Mass). Given the above, even if
a 'kiss of peace' were to be offered in olden times, many of the
dangers that now exist would not have existed then (since
the people were segregated and all persons in church could be
presumed to be Catholics "in the peace of Christ" - and
assuredly they would not have dressed or acted inappropriately or
have had doubts about the Real Presence, etc.).

Note that in the traditional Latin Mass, an
exchange of peace was limited to the priest and deacon, whose
actions were symbolic and reminded us that we must be at peace
with others. It is important to note that being at peace with
others primarily comes from within, and does not arise from merely
hugging or shaking another's hand - especially considering that
those we may need to reconcile with may not be sitting in close
proximity to us.

Similar objections may also be raised to the
abuse of hand-holding which is common even among strangers or near
strangers in some parishes (e.g. during the Our Father).
Additionally, hand-holding has been considered an "intimate
gesture" and is therefore especially improper in
Church. Further, it "takes a personal prayer to our Father in
heaven and makes it a 'community event'". This practice is
thought to be connected with the Protestant-inspired Charismatic
movement.

No. The confusion lies in the fact that the
laity's participation in the 'Tridentine' Mass is mainly internal
participation - as opposed to empty external displays. As Pope
Pius XII has said, "The worship rendered by the Church to God
must be, in its entirety, interior as well as exterior... But the
chief element of divine worship must be interior". Further,
it should be noted that the faithful do participate externally in
a 'Tridentine' Mass (e.g. kneeling, standing, signs of the cross,
striking one's breast, receiving Holy Communion, making any
appropriate responses, participating in singing, etc.).

There is more kneeling in the
'Tridentine' Mass (especially a low Mass) than in the Novus Ordo
(New Order) Mass of the 1960's - however a better question may be
"Why is there so little kneeling in the Novus Ordo Mass?". In fact, some parishes have even been built without
kneelers! In other places, persons have been told not to kneel at
certain points of the Mass even when the Holy Eucharist is present.
In at least one area, those who continued to kneel at
"forbidden times" were told that the "disobedience
of kneeling" was a "mortal sin". Some were kicked
out of positions in the parish for such "egregious
sins". As to why such things occur and why there is so little
kneeling in the Novus Ordo Mass, one can only be left to
contemplate what possible reasons may account for it - e.g. is it
to please Protestants who reject the Real Presence?, is it to
promote the 'meal' concept?, etc.- surely it cannot be to
promote piety or to please God! Jesus himself knelt in prayer. The
Apostles knelt.
Scripture tells us to kneel. The Saints and Popes knelt. Etc.

"Enter,
let us bow down in worship; let us kneel before the LORD who made
us." (Ps. 95:6)

"In
the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in
heaven, on earth, and under the earth" (St. Paul, Phil. 2:10)

"All
who sleep in the earth will bow low before God; All who have gone
down into the dust will kneel in homage." (Ps. 22:30)

"I
bend my knee to the Father of my Lord Jesus Christ, from whom all
paternity in heaven and on earth is named" (St. Paul, Eph.
3:14).

Some persons today
may cling to certain early Church quotations to support the lack of kneeling
- for example an early Church
decision to stand on Sunday in order that "there will be uniformity of practice in all things in every
diocese" (First Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.) or St. Basil's
remark that "On the first day of the week, we stand when we
pray; but not all of us know why. The reason is that on the day of
resurrection, by standing at prayer, we remind ourselves of the
grace we have received." (c. 375 A.D.)

While the practice of standing practice may have promoted uniformity and reflected a
belief in
the Resurrection in the early Church, it does not really support
their argument in today's world. For example, consider that:

*
Many persons nowadays go to Mass only on Sundays (and would
therefore never kneel at Mass - which was surely not
desired by the Council of Nicaea or St. Basil)

*
Since the substitution of the Novus Ordo Mass for the 'Tridentine'
Mass there is no longer any "uniformity of practice in all things in every
diocese", so it is ridiculous to claim that standing will
bring such "uniformity of practice in all things in every
diocese".

*
Today there is widespread disbelief in the Real Presence, combined
with a
serious lack of fear of the Lord. Considering that St. Paul says
that a person who fails to discern the Body and Blood of the Lord
in the Holy Eucharist "drinks judgment on himself" (St.
Paul, 1 Cor. 11:29), we can see that
this is a very serious matter with very serious consequences.
Therefore, every appropriate action possible should be done to restore this belief
in the Real Presence and foster fear of the Lord - such as kneeling
- rather than promote things which do not assist in such
matters (or even tend to contradict them). The Council of Nicaea
and St. Basil certainly never faced this problem - and it is certainly doubtful
that if they had faced this "crisis of faith" they would
want parishioners to stand rather than kneel.

Furthermore,
it may be argued that those who want parishioners to stand aren't genuinely
seeking uniformity of practice or wanting to return to
earlier practices - but really just don't want people to kneel for
the Holy Eucharist. If they really want uniformity of practice,
why do they so dislike the 'Tridentine' Mass which is universally
essentially
the same? If they really want to return to primitive
practices, why do they not seek a return to all the
primitive practices - including one contained in another canon in the same
Council of Nicaea
which ("mercifully") requires a dozen years of penance for a sin [three years
among the 'hearers' (those allowed only in the vestibule of the
church and only allowed in for part of the Mass), plus 'seven
years among the kneelers' (those who knelt in the knave while the
faithful stood), and two additional years without receiving the
Eucharist']?

"Concerning
those who have transgressed without necessity or the confiscation
of their property or without danger or anything of this nature, as
happened under the tyranny of Licinius, this holy synod decrees
that, though they do not deserve leniency, nevertheless they
should be treated mercifully. Those therefore among the faithful
who genuinely repent shall spend three years among the hearers,
for seven years they shall be prostrators, and for two years they
shall take part with the people in the prayers, though not in the
offering." (Council of Nicaea)

Why is it they selectively choose what primitive
practices they want and reject all that they don't want if they
are really so concerned about following the early Church?

Finally,
as
some saints have said:

"['The
Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank you,
that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers,
or even as this Publican.' (Lk. 18:11)] It is said 'standing,' to
denote his haughty temper. For his very posture betokens his
extreme pride." (St. Theophylact)

["He
answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe in (the
Son of God)? And Jesus said to him, You have both seen him, and it
is he that talks with you. And he said, Lord, I believe. And
falling down, he
worshipped him." (Jn. 9:36-38)] An example to us, not to pray
to God with uplifted neck, but prostrate upon earth, suppliantly
to implore His mercy." (St. Bede the Venerable, Doctor of the
Church)

"But
what means His bending of knees? of which it is said, And he
kneeled down, and prayed. It is the way of men to pray to their
superiors with their faces on the ground, testifying by the action
that the greater of the two are those who are asked. Now it is
plain that human nature contains nothing worthy of God's
imitation. Accordingly the tokens of respect which we evince to
one another, confessing ourselves to be inferior to our neighbors,
we have transferred to the humiliation of the Incomparable Nature.
And thus He who bore our sicknesses and interceded for us, bent
His knee in prayer, by reason of the man which He assumed, giving
us an example, that we ought not to exalt ourselves at the time of
prayer, but in all things be conformed to humility; for God
resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble." (St.
Gregory of Nyssa)

The
above is provided for informational purposes only and is not
comprehensive. We make no guarantees regarding any item herein. By using
this site you indicate agreement to all terms. For terms information,
see "Important Notice" above and click
here.

"This 'unique', tradition-minded coloring book
which contains some of the most popular Catholic prayers in Latin is a fun way
to become more familiar with Latin prayers & increase Latin language retention!"

An enjoyable and
instructive tool with respect to Latin (the 'beautiful & majestic language of
heaven' and 'official language of the Church' - a language 'consecrated' by the
inscription on the Cross that helps to foster a universal bond in prayer with
Catholics around the world), this publication is suitable for Catholics of most any
age.

+ + +

"This Catholic coloring book
- which provides hours of wholesome & educational recreation - is so much better
for your soul than television!"

+ + +

Paperback Just $7.99

Notice: Prices are subject to change
without notice and do not include any applicable taxes.

Includes: Facts which demonstrate that Luther
was NOT sent by God, Luther received approval of his teaching from Satan,
Luther's misbehavior, some results of Luther's teachings, Luther admits he could
be wrong, and more...

Thank you for being part of over 5,500,000
visitors to MyCatholicSource.com since 2009! *

+All ads subject to our terms. Price
indicated may be base price for non-refundable processing fee,
excluding tax, optional ad enhancements, etc. "Place your ad" /
"list your business" / "list your Catholic product or service free"
/ etc. is not a guarantee that any ad will appear on this site.
Payment of processing fee does not assure appearance of ad on site.
References to target cycles (e.g. "just $##.##/yr.") are not
guarantees [ads that appear on the site may appear for a longer or
shorter time than the indicated target cycles (e.g. from 0 days to
multiples of a target cycle)] and are subject to change at any time
without notice (either retroactively or on a go-forward basis,
either individually / selectively / grouped / or in total).

Reminders: You may not
copy / distribute (including via e-mail, website, etc.) / sell /
etc. information contained on this site (or any images) or use them
for any commercial purpose whatsoever. All applicable content is
owned by us and is protected by copyright laws. Any unauthorized
reproduction / distribution / use of such content is prohibited by
law and may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. Note that
we reserve the right to prosecute violators to the maximum extent
possible. Also note that views of others do not necessarily reflect our
views. We make no guarantees regarding any item herein and we not
responsible/liable for any consequences which may occur as a -
direct or indirect - result of use of this site. By using this site
(or associated materials), you agree to hold us harmless for all
damages in connection with use of this site (or other materials),
regardless of their nature. Remember that we are not a party to
others' transactions / activities (including posting, browsing of
posts/ads, transfers, contacts / correspondence, etc.) even if
information regarding the transactions / activities appears on this
site or other materials of ours, and that we do not mediate
disputes. You are solely responsible for all consequences of your
transactions / activities. Use of this site is at your own risk,
with no liability whatsoever to us. By using this site, you agree to
all terms. For more terms information, click here.